Distributed Leadership in Organizations a Review of Theory
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 13, 251–269 (2011) DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00306.x Distributed Leadership in Organizations: A Review of Theory and Researchijmr_306 251..269 Richard Bolden Centre for Leadership Studies, University of Exeter Business School, Rennes Drive, Exeter EX4 4ST, UK Corresponding author email: [email protected] The aim of this paper is to review conceptual and empirical literature on the concept of distributed leadership (DL) in order to identify its origins, key arguments and areas for further work. Consideration is given to the similarities and differences between DL and related concepts, including ‘shared’, ‘collective’, ‘collaborative’, ‘emergent’, ‘co-’ and ‘democratic’ leadership. Findings indicate that, while there are some common theo- retical bases, the relative usage of these concepts varies over time, between countries and between sectors. In particular, DL is a notion that has seen a rapid growth in interest since the year 2000, but research remains largely restricted to the field of school education and of proportionally more interest to UK than US-based academics. Several scholars are increasingly going to great lengths to indicate that, in order to be ‘distrib- uted’, leadership need not necessarily be widely ‘shared’ or ‘democratic’ and, in order to be effective, there is a need to balance different ‘hybrid configurations’ of practice. The paper highlights a number of areas for further attention, including three factors relating to the context of much work on DL (power and influence; organizational boundaries and context; and ethics and diversity), and three methodological and developmental challenges (ontology; research methods; and leadership development, reward and recognition). It is concluded that descriptive and normative perspectives which dominate the literature should be supplemented by more critical accounts which recognize the rhetorical and discursive significance of DL in (re)constructing leader– follower identities, mobilizing collective engagement and challenging or reinforcing traditional forms of organization. Introduction Distributed leadership has become a popular ‘post-heroic’ (Badaracco 2001) representation of In an article entitled ‘Distributed properties: a new leadership which has encouraged a shift in focus architecture for leadership’, Peter Gronn (2000) out- from the attributes and behaviours of individual lined the concept of ‘distributed leadership’ (DL) as ‘leaders’ (as promoted within traditional trait, situ- a potential solution to the tendency of leadership ational, style and transformational theories of thinking to be divided into two opposing camps: leadership – see Northouse 2007 for a review) those that consider it largely the consequence of indi- to a more systemic perspective, whereby ‘leader- vidual agency (e.g. Bass 1985) and those that present ship’ is conceived of as a collective social process it as the result of systems design and role structures emerging through the interactions of multiple actors (e.g. Jaques 1989). Over the subsequent decade, as (Uhl-Bien 2006). From this perspective, it is the papers in this Special Issue testify, the concept of argued: DL has gone from strength to strength and has made substantial inroads into particular areas of theory and Distributed leadership is not something ‘done’ by practice. an individual ‘to’ others, or a set of individual © 2011 The Author International Journal of Management Reviews © 2011 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA 252 R. Bolden actions through which people contribute to a group namebutafew.1 Common across all these accounts or organization...[it] is a group activity that works is the idea that leadership is not the monopoly or through and within relationships, rather than indi- responsibility of just one person, with each suggest- vidual action. (Bennett et al. 2003, p. 3) ing a similar need for a more collective and systemic understanding of leadership as a social process For Gronn (2002), DL offered the promise of (Barker 2001; Hosking 1988). a new ‘unit of analysis’ through which leadership Within this paper I explore the lineage of the could be understood in a holistic sense rather than concept of DL and its recent rise to prominence. I simply as the aggregation of individual contribu- explore the emergence of DL as a discrete body of tions. He referred to this dimension of leadership as literature, reflecting on its relative use in relation to ‘concertive action’ (as contrasted with ‘numerical alternative conceptions of leadership as a shared action’) and illustrated his argument with three process. I review the main theoretical developments alternative forms of engagement (‘spontaneous col- in this field and the manner in which these ideas have laboration’, ‘intuitive working relationships’ and been embraced and applied within different sectors ‘institutionalized practices’) each of which could be and contexts. I explore the empirical evidence from considered as a manifestation of ‘conjoint agency’. research into DL within organizations, highlighting In setting out his argument, Gronn called for a fun- some common themes and areas of difference. damental reframing of leadership, suggesting that it Finally, I reflect on the direction in which the field ‘is more appropriately understood as a fluid and seems to be headed and priorities for further investi- emergent, rather than as a fixed, phenomenon’ gation.2 (Gronn 2000, p. 324) – a call that has been enthu- siastically received by scholars and practitioners alike. The theoretical origins of DL In taking a distributed perspective, attention turns from generic accounts of the attributes and/or actions While it is only really since the turn of the millen- of individual leaders to ‘situated leadership practice’ nium that the concept of DL has been widely (Spillane 2006). According to Spillane and Diamond embraced by scholars and practitioners, the origins (2007b, p. 7) ‘a distributed perspective on leadership of the concept go back quite a bit further. Oduro involves two aspects – the leader plus aspect and the (2004, p. 4) suggests that accounts of DL date back practice aspect’. The ‘leader-plus’ aspect ‘acknow- as far as 1250 BC, making it ‘one of the most ancient ledges and takes account of the work of all the leadership notions recommended for fulfilling organ- individuals who have a hand in leadership and man- izational goals through people’. In terms of its theor- agement practice’ rather than just those in formally ization, however, Harris (2009, p. 3) proposes that it designated ‘leadership’ roles. The ‘practice’ aspect ‘is an idea that can be traced back as far as the mid ‘foregrounds the practice of leading and managing 20s and possibly earlier’. Gronn (2000) cites Gibb [...and...] frames it as a product of the interac- (1954) as the first author to refer explicitly to DL tions of school leaders, followers, and aspects of when proposing that ‘leadership is probably best their situation’. According to these authors, together conceived as a group quality, as a set of functions these aspects of leadership offer an analytical frame- which must be carried out by the group’ (Gibb 1954, work for ‘examining the day-to-day practice of lead- cited in Gronn 2000, p. 324). Gibb’s distinction ership and management’ rather than dwelling on ‘leaders and leadership structures, functions and 1Additional terms include ‘dispersed’ leadership’ (e.g. roles’. Gordon 2002, 2010; Ray et al. 2004) and ‘distributive lead- Distributed leadership, however, is not the only ership’ (e.g. Brown and Gioia 2002), although in each case these are used far less widely than those terms selected for theory or approach to call for such a reframing of investigation in this paper. how we understand leadership. The notion of ‘shared 2The literature for this paper was identified from a compre- leadership’ (SL) has also been in use for some time hensive search of bibliographic databases (including Busi- (see Pearce and Conger 2003a for a review), as ness Source Complete, EBSCO, JSTOR and Scopus) as well have those of ‘collective leadership’ (e.g. Denis et al. as analysis of a number of recent reviews (including Harris 2009; Leithwood et al. 2009a; and Spillane and Diamond 2001), ‘collaborative leadership’ (e.g. Rosenthal 2007a). As indicated in the title, the primary focus of the 1998), ‘co-leadership’ (e.g. Heenan and Bennis paper is on DL in organizations rather than, for example, in 1999) and ‘emergent leadership’ (e.g. Beck 1981), to communities or other groups. © 2011 The Author International Journal of Management Reviews © 2011 British Academy of Management and Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Distributed Leadership in Organizations 253 between ‘two forms of distribution: the overall such as: Mary Parker Follett’s (1942/2003) work on numerical frequency of the acts contributed by each reciprocal influence; Benne and Sheats (1948) work group member and “the multiplicity or pattern of on the diffusion of leadership functions within group functions performed” ’ (Gronn 2000, p. 324) groups; Gibb’s (1954) work on leadership; French form the basis for Gronn’s distinction between and Snyder’s (1959) and Dahl’s (1961) work on the numerical and concertive action and provide the fun- distribution of power and influence; Becker and damental building blocks for subsequent theoretical Useem’s (1942) and Etzioni’s (1965) work on dual development. leadership; Kerr and Jermier’s (1978) work on sub- Despite this early interest in the concept, however, stitutes for leadership; Katz and Kahn’s (1966, 1978) as Gronn (2000, p. 324) suggests, the idea of DL ‘lay work on sharing leadership; and Schein (1988) on the dormant until its resurrection by Brown and Hosking functions of leadership. (1986)’ and is only mentioned in a smattering of In addition to these sources Harris (2009) cites the articles during the 1980s and 1990s (e.g. Barry 1991; work of: Festinger et al. (1950) and Heinicke and Beck and Peters 1981; Gregory 1996; Leithwood Bales’ (1953) on informal leadership in groups and et al.